Why did god create angels, and after the angels turned on him make man who turned on him? (both situations according to the bible made him angry.) If god knows all, is not bound by time and has absolute power why would he keep doing things that disappoint him.

Finally why make me with a fallible brain, knowing (in his infine wisdom) that I would take all the evidence of his existence and misread it as fable. Then for a simple mistake of reason punish me for a finite sin of a fallible brain (he created) to an eternity of punishment? (mind you I don't disbelieve in god because I don't like him, I dont believe because I find his story to be ficticious)

Oh yeah, why all the mystery, surely a visible god is much easier to believe in. Why all the cloak and dagger shit? Appear in the sky blow up some sinners and write a bible in a language that all humans understand at their core, no translation errors or misunderstanding. Hell writing a bible that all humans understand at a genetic level would certainly go a long way toward to converting me I think. Why let your word be corrupted by mistranslations, and period sensitive verses that are culturally meaningless today.

You're funny, Welcome to the conversation about the existence of God. For me to answer your question you will have to acknowledge first his existence (that's what implied in your questions). Do you agree with me that God exist?

Why would I need to acknowledge gods existence for you to comment. But if it makes you feel better I will acknowlege his existence for the sake of argument.

Personally as we learn more about the universe we slowly push back the place where god must have existed. Once upon a time god was necessary for lightning to strike (then we learned about electrons), rain to come (condensation and evaporation), stars to exist (gravity and burning hydrogen). Our knowledge of the mechanics of weather, universe do not eliminate the possibility of god, only offers a non supernatural alternative. Now the place where I still leave reserved for possible proof of god is the instant the big bang began. The only place I see as a last refuge for proving god is in my ignorance of the creation of everything from nothing.

For the moment I will take that shread of belief in the possibility of a creator to be my belief in god/any flavor of the christian bible you choose. So go ahead and answer the questions above.

PS just thought of another great proof. Any attempt to misrepresent the word of god on paper results in the words catching fire, and uttering falsehoods about god makes you violently ill.

I thought I would create a new thread to answer his questions because I found them out of subject over there.

I believe he can heal amputees but he wants to follow his laws. Nothing is lost, nothing is created. If a miracle where to happen it would be him reattaching the limb to the amputee, not creating a new one out of thin air.

I believe he can heal amputees but he wants to follow his laws. Nothing is lost, nothing is created. If a miracle where to happen it would be him reattaching the limb to the amputee, not creating a new one out of thin air.

The point of the question is; if your god, as so many Christians believe, regularly heals the sick of cancers and a multitude of other various illnesses via miracles, why is that it wont heal any amputees? Why are people never cured of alzhiemers, no matter how much they might pray? Why are they never cured of incurable disease?

Of course, if you're not one of those believers that thinks your god interferes with maladies afflicting its creation, well then the question doesn't really apply to you.

I believe he can heal amputees but he wants to follow his laws. Nothing is lost, nothing is created.

Do we assume all the descriptions of god apparently violating his own laws to manifest some outcome, then, are all metaphorical?

Quote

If a miracle where to happen it would be him reattaching the limb to the amputee, not creating a new one out of thin air.

a) This seems like...something that would still violate the laws you alluded to earlier. Maybe I'm not too certain which laws you are referring to. You said 'nothing is lost, nothing is created', which seems to refer to conservation of mass/energy. If you mean that he won't violate laws of physics to manifest an outcome, then I fail to see how he'd be able to do so without violating at least some law of physics.

Is this one of those 'god will send a doctor/helicopter' kind of arguments?

b) Is there a difference between 'miracle' and 'positive outcome'?

In any case, it sounds like your answer to the question "Why won't god heal amputees" is simply that he does not want to. Or he wants to do some other things more.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Do we assume all the descriptions of god apparently violating his own laws to manifest some outcome, then, are all metaphorical?

No. I don't see when does he violate his laws?

Quote

a) This seems like...something that would still violate the laws you alluded to earlier. Maybe I'm not too certain which laws you are referring to. You said 'nothing is lost, nothing is created', which seems to refer to conservation of mass/energy. If you mean that he won't violate laws of physics to manifest an outcome, then I fail to see how he'd be able to do so without violating at least some law of physics.

I was referring to the law of conservation of mass/energy indeed. Reattach a limb does not violate any laws of physics...that I know of.

Quote

Is there a difference between 'miracle' and 'positive outcome'?

Well, every miracle have a positive outcome. I guess the other way around would work but first we must agree that there are different degrees of miracles. If not, then a positive outcome is not a miracle.

Quote

In any case, it sounds like your answer to the question "Why won't god heal amputees" is simply that he does not want to. Or he wants to do some other things more.

I agree with the second part. Some other things are more important to us (so, to Him as well) than heal amputees.

I believe he can heal amputees but he wants to follow his laws. Nothing is lost, nothing is created. If a miracle where to happen it would be him reattaching the limb to the amputee, not creating a new one out of thin air.

But time, space, light, the earth, the sky, animals, and humans can be created out of nothing (as per genesis in the bible) without violating his own laws?

I believe he can heal amputees but he wants to follow his laws. Nothing is lost, nothing is created.

So we can discount any alleged "miracle" where god causes material to appear from nothing. We can also discount any "miracle" where things move without cause, violating physical laws. And we can discount any healing "miracles" at all - anything that would not have happened naturally as a result of time and treatment and medicine likewise violates the laws put in place.

We can discount any communication from god as well. Hearing a physical voice? Nope - because he won't create sound waves from nothing. Hearing a voice in your head? Nope again - because it would require changes to electrochemical activity on the brain, which - again - can't be created from nothing.

So your contention is that god never intervenes in the universe in any way. Okay.

I agree with the second part. Some other things are more important to us (so, to Him as well) than heal amputees.

No. This cannot be correct. The religious all agree that God can do anything. Yet the thing he has never done is heal an amputee. He has, allegedly, cured the blind, lame, deaf, mad, leprous, etc. He is credited with healing all things. He must be aware of amputees. Why, in all the years he has been around, has he never given one their limb back?

There must have been amputees of all faiths and levels of faith. There must have been prayers to heal amputees from people of all faiths and levels of faith. Yet, nothing. Nothing at all.

Could it be possible that it is easy to lie about whether you were blind, lame, deaf, mad, leprous, etc. but to lie about being an amputee is almost impossible?

I am reminded of Monty Python and The Holy Grail in which a peasant (John Cleese) claims to have been turned into a newt. Suddenly there is silence and all the other peasants all look at him... "I got better."

To claim a cure for an amputee is to jump the shark. Even the most fanatical theist has to draw a line somewhere.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Resurrection of the dead seems to be one of those."Thou shalt not kill"Ten plagues of Egypt.

Just a few possible examples.

Quote

I was referring to the law of conservation of mass/energy indeed. Reattach a limb does not violate any laws of physics...that I know of.

Well how do you imagine god to accomplish the feat?

Quote

Well, every miracle have a positive outcome. I guess the other way around would work but first we must agree that there are different degrees of miracles. If not, then a positive outcome is not a miracle.

How do you go about measuring 'degrees of miracles'? Is miracle synonymous with 'unlikely event that results in a positive outcome'?

Quote

Quote

In any case, it sounds like your answer to the question "Why won't god heal amputees" is simply that he does not want to. Or he wants to do some other things more.

I agree with the second part. Some other things are more important to us (so, to Him as well) than heal amputees.

Do you think ending world hunger is higher or lower on god's Priority List of Things to Help Humanity (whom I so love and care about) Out With?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

I believe he can heal amputees but he wants to follow his laws. Nothing is lost, nothing is created. If a miracle where to happen it would be him reattaching the limb to the amputee, not creating a new one out of thin air.

But time, space, light, the earth, the sky, animals, and humans can be created out of nothing (as per genesis in the bible) without violating his own laws?

For that to be true, the Genesis book must be and historical book. Why would think that Genesis is an historical book? (I don't)

I believe he can heal amputees but he wants to follow his laws. Nothing is lost, nothing is created.

So we can discount any alleged "miracle" where god causes material to appear from nothing. We can also discount any "miracle" where things move without cause, violating physical laws. And we can discount any healing "miracles" at all - anything that would not have happened naturally as a result of time and treatment and medicine likewise violates the laws put in place.

We can discount any communication from god as well. Hearing a physical voice? Nope - because he won't create sound waves from nothing. Hearing a voice in your head? Nope again - because it would require changes to electrochemical activity on the brain, which - again - can't be created from nothing.

So your contention is that god never intervenes in the universe in any way. Okay.

Not at all. Miracles are, sometime, things that happens (or happened) that science could not explain. It does not mean that we won't be able to explain it in the future nor that it breaks the laws of physics. It might break the laws of physics as we know it now and not later.

I agree with the second part. Some other things are more important to us (so, to Him as well) than heal amputees.

No. This cannot be correct. The religious all agree that God can do anything. Yet the thing he has never done is heal an amputee. He has, allegedly, cured the blind, lame, deaf, mad, leprous, etc. He is credited with healing all things. He must be aware of amputees. Why, in all the years he has been around, has he never given one their limb back?

There must have been amputees of all faiths and levels of faith. There must have been prayers to heal amputees from people of all faiths and levels of faith. Yet, nothing. Nothing at all.

Could it be possible that it is easy to lie about whether you were blind, lame, deaf, mad, leprous, etc. but to lie about being an amputee is almost impossible?

I am reminded of Monty Python and The Holy Grail in which a peasant (John Cleese) claims to have been turned into a newt. Suddenly there is silence and all the other peasants all look at him... "I got better."

To claim a cure for an amputee is to jump the shark. Even the most fanatical theist has to draw a line somewhere.

You should look into the Miracle of LancianoWiki. It is one of the many proof that God doesn't need someone to lie about the miracle as you proposed.Also "Why, in all the years he has been around, has he never given one their limb back?" The reason is the same I gave to answer this post : God choose to follow his laws. Nothing is lost, nothing is created.

Resurrection of the dead seems to be one of those."Thou shalt not kill"Ten plagues of Egypt.Just a few possible examples.

The ten plagues of Egypt comes from the Old testament. Do you believe that it actually happened? (I don't)For resurrecting the dead, I can see already how some people from only 50 years ago would think that we resurrected some of our sick. Maybe one day we will find out how Jesus did it.

Quote

Well how do you imagine god to accomplish the feat?

We (humans) can do it with fingers... so, advanced science? I'm not sure I understand your question thou.

Quote

How do you go about measuring 'degrees of miracles'? Is miracle synonymous with 'unlikely event that results in a positive outcome'?

Some people say that surviving a crash is a miracle or that he got the shot in basketball was also a miracle. I don't see those 2 miracles at the same degree, do you?

Quote

Do you think ending world hunger is higher or lower on god's Priority List of Things to Help Humanity (whom I so love and care about) Out With?

Some other things are more important to us (so, to Him as well) than world hunger. What I'm saying that God chose to respect our freedom, even if it destroys us.

You should look into the Miracle of LancianoWiki. It is one of the many proof that God doesn't need someone to lie about the miracle as you proposed.Also "Why, in all the years he has been around, has he never given one their limb back?" The reason is the same I gave to answer this post : God choose to follow his laws. Nothing is lost, nothing is created.

Protip:Use more filler words in between your blatant contradictions. It will obscure it more from casual purview and increase the odds of it being overlooked.

For example, if you are going to propose something like {insert miracle containing clear or at least extraordinarily likely violations of known laws of physics} and then proclaim that 'god choose to follow his laws' (earlier indicating things like 'laws of physics' as some of those laws that he will follow) as some kind of an answer, you should put maybe something from here:http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

in between so that, by the time the reader gets to the contradiction, they'll have forgotten about the first part.

A winner is you!

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

I believe he can heal amputees but he wants to follow his laws. Nothing is lost, nothing is created. If a miracle where to happen it would be him reattaching the limb to the amputee, not creating a new one out of thin air.

But time, space, light, the earth, the sky, animals, and humans can be created out of nothing (as per genesis in the bible) without violating his own laws?

For that to be true, the Genesis book must be and historical book. Why would think that Genesis is an historical book? (I don't)

Can you tell me which books in the bible are historical and what criteria you have used to determine that they are?

It is one of the many proof that God doesn't need someone to lie about the miracle as you proposed.

It is lie from start to finish.The point is you are so gullible that you believe it is true! Even the start of the story is obviously a lie.

Why are you tricked by an old lie?

Quote

Also "Why, in all the years he has been around, has he never given one their limb back?" The reason is the same I gave to answer this post : God choose to follow his laws. Nothing is lost, nothing is created.

Hello, that is not an answer. If you write than in an examination you would get "Nul points".

No. The answer is obvious. He doesn't do it because he is not there.

Nobody claims he does it, because they would quickly be proven liars.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

I believe he can heal amputees but he wants to follow his laws. Nothing is lost, nothing is created.

So we can discount any alleged "miracle" where god causes material to appear from nothing. ......

Not at all. Miracles are, sometime, things that happens (or happened) that science could not explain. It does not mean that we won't be able to explain it in the future nor that it breaks the laws of physics.

Fine. Then your original statement has no basis, because I can just as well say that we may find in future that amputee healing DOES follow a law - we just haven't found it yet. You can't have it both ways.

Fine. Then your original statement has no basis, because I can just as well say that we may find in future that amputee healing DOES follow a law - we just haven't found it yet. You can't have it both ways.

I don't think that discussions work the way you are using it. Using what might happen in the future can't be accepted as a counter argument.

It is one of the many proof that God doesn't need someone to lie about the miracle as you proposed.

It is lie from start to finish.The point is you are so gullible that you believe it is true! Even the start of the story is obviously a lie.

Why are you tricked by an old lie?

Quote

Also "Why, in all the years he has been around, has he never given one their limb back?" The reason is the same I gave to answer this post : God choose to follow his laws. Nothing is lost, nothing is created.

Hello, that is not an answer. If you write than in an examination you would get "Nul points".

No. The answer is obvious. He doesn't do it because he is not there.

Nobody claims he does it, because they would quickly be proven liars.

Could you help me with some support to your counter argument?From what it can read it is just. "You are wrong! because I am right!"

I believe he can heal amputees but he wants to follow his laws. Nothing is lost, nothing is created. If a miracle where to happen it would be him reattaching the limb to the amputee, not creating a new one out of thin air.

Let me see. He won't do it, but you know how he would if he did. And you know what he wouldn't do. You seem a bit more privy to this information that most people. Why is that?

As long as you know so much, why are his laws more important that the missing arm of a child or a mother or friend? He made 'em, he can break them. But he prefers that people, both innocent and guilty, suffer both prolonged agony and being crippled, just because his laws are important? Didn't he see this coming?

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

Let me see. He won't do it, but you know how he would if he did. And you know what he wouldn't do. You seem a bit more privy to this information that most people. Why is that?As long as you know so much, why are his laws more important that the missing arm of a child or a mother or friend? He made 'em, he can break them. But he prefers that people, both innocent and guilty, suffer both prolonged agony and being crippled, just because his laws are important? Didn't he see this coming?

It makes sense doesn't it? I use logic to be "privy". For the rest, maybe, and that's just speculation because I am not Him, the world as we know it would end if he went against the laws of physics. Maybe God chose to let Billions live for the price of one people to live without a limb. We don't know what would happen if a limb magically reappeared, it seems it never happen before. One thing is sure, If God does something miraculous it will be in the interest of humanity, not against it.I know of some people who wanted to go against the law of physics and killed many.

Let me see. He won't do it, but you know how he would if he did. And you know what he wouldn't do. You seem a bit more privy to this information that most people. Why is that?As long as you know so much, why are his laws more important that the missing arm of a child or a mother or friend? He made 'em, he can break them. But he prefers that people, both innocent and guilty, suffer both prolonged agony and being crippled, just because his laws are important? Didn't he see this coming?

It makes sense doesn't it? I use logic to be "privy". For the rest, maybe, and that's just speculation because I am not Him, the world as we know it would end if he went against the laws of physics. Maybe God chose to let Billions live for the price of one people to live without a limb. We don't know what would happen if a limb magically reappeared, it seems it never happen before. One thing is sure, If God does something miraculous it will be in the interest of humanity, not against it.I know of some people who wanted to go against the law of physics and killed many.

I'm not quite sure why guessing qualifies as logic, but for the religious I guess that's par for the course. Since you have nothing real to work with, you have to adjust. I understand.

As usual, since you know you're right, obviously the rest of us are wrong, and your only job is to figure out how to convince us of how wrong we are. To do that, you use your logic to tell you to sound real stupid, in hopes that we too are stupid, so we call all be impressed by how similar you are to us.

Happily, few of us here are underqualified enough to convert.

Its funny that you want us to ask questions when you would never do that yourself. You'll say otherwise, but you don't dare question your own beliefs because, as with all believers, truth is never the issue when it might get in the way of what you hope is real. What you need to be real. Because you, like most believers, probably couldn't handle reality if you knew more about it. Well, you could, but you prefer pretending to have answers over appreciating the mystery.

There is no god. Of any flavor. Get over it.

How do I know? By using logic. A real god wouldn't put together a religion that attracted only fools.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

As usual, since you know you're right, obviously the rest of us are wrong, and your only job is to figure out how to convince us of how wrong we are.

No, I am here to answer your question in a manner that the only way you could counter argument me is by insulting me or slapping on the table and say "You are wrong! Because I am right!" or any version of that threat.

As usual, since you know you're right, obviously the rest of us are wrong, and your only job is to figure out how to convince us of how wrong we are.

No, I am here to answer your question in a manner that the only way you could counter argument me is by insulting me or slapping on the table and say "You are wrong! Because I am right!" or any version of that threat.

No, you're here saying you are right in exactly the same manner I am saying I am right. Your "civility" is maddening because you are only talking at us, not to us. You standing assumption that we have any questions for you in the first place shows us where your ego is, and your refusal to apply the standards you ask of us to yourself irritates the locals.

If you look closely, you'll see that your many posts have a yet to convert a single person. There is a reason for that. You've got nothing, and you're not very good when it comes to talking about it.

Outside of this subject, you are presumably an intelligent person. Its too bad you've let your need to believe get in the way of your life. And ours.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

I believe he can heal amputees but he wants to follow his laws. Nothing is lost, nothing is created. If a miracle where to happen it would be him reattaching the limb to the amputee, not creating a new one out of thin air.

You said God wants to "follow his laws" (presumably meaning the physical laws of the universe which you believe he created). This would mean that, according to your belief, this God thing does not do miracles of any kind (including those in the bible). How then can you separate superstition from your belief in the divinity or "divine inspiration" of the bible? Doesn't it seem to you just a bit convenient for Christians to argue that their God no longer does miracles? What if I came to your door and told you I had a magic potion that would cure all of your sicknesses, but when you asked me for evidence I just said, "Well, I can't give that right now. But I will once you pay me!" What would be your response to an extraordinary claim with no demonstrable extraordinary evidence? What should be your response to such claims?

If this deity you believe in does not manifest in the physical world whatsoever, then how is this in any way different from an imaginary deity not existing at all?

Just look at the rationalizing that has to take place in order to continue believing this stuff. There is no demonstrable evidence of a deity named "Yahweh" (just claims in old books). There are no manifestations of this being anywhere (including the deity allegedly healing anyone). There are no confirmed demonstrable experiences that can be reliably tied to this deity. And there are many sound reasons (and examples) for thinking that people are mistaken, delusional, or intellectually dishonest when making supernatural claims. Why then would you want to rest your entire life on such hear-say?

The simplest and most rational explanation as to why this "loving God" does not heal amputees is that this "God" is not real.

No it is not. We have millions of examples of people flying (by use of airplanes), which are demonstrable and can be confirmed today. Can you point to ONE confirmed example (not just a claim but a real example) of a "God" healing an amputee (as is alleged in the bible) which can be confirmed today, like we can with people flying?